comp.lang.c Google Group

Re: Idiotic programming style edicts

friz...@tx.rr.com (Charles Richmond) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:43:19 UT

You can tell when Nigles is off his medication... :-)

Re: Cryptic Syntax

gene.ress...@gmail.com (Gene) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:18:01 UT

Hard to say what it does because it's nonsense. There is no
declaration for z. The comment is meaningless.
If z were declared to be a pointer of any kind, then the (int*) would
cast it to a pointer to int. The * dereferences this pointer.
Consequently
*(int*)(z)
has type int. The
(int (*)())
casts this to a pointer to function returning int. The leftmost *

Re: Idiotic programming style edicts

j.c.mor...@verizon.net (Joe Morris) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:11:04 UT

Thread drift warning...
My (non-parity-checked) memory tells me that there was a code block in the
MFT-1 (OS/360 release 14 or maybe 13) nucleus that had register equates
named the traditional Rn (0 <= n <= 15),
but with Rn set equal to a value other than n. I *think* it was in the FLIH
(First-Level Interrupt Handler), in code assembled at sysgen. I always

Re: Implementing strstr

spinoza1...@yahoo.com (spinoza1111) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:07:44 UT

Thanks, very interesting link and "esoteric" programming language.

Re: Implementing strstr

spinoza1...@yahoo.com (spinoza1111) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:06:56 UT

The first two releases had a bug: after a one character "handle" is
found we set the ptrIndex to the master string at one past the handle:
this is incorrect, for the start of the main loop will then search for
the first character of the NEXT occurence, missing the overlapping
occurence.
Here is the corrected code.

Re: Cryptic Syntax

ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:59:42 UT

Lets break it down. The expression is in two parts:
(*(int(*)())*(int*)(z)) (x,y)
That is the form of a function call. The complex expression should
result in a pointer to a function (all C functions are called as if
through a pointer to them) and the arguments x and y are passed to it.
So what of the function part? It consists of four operators applied to

Re: Has thought been given given to a cleaned up C? Possibly called C+.

s...@spam.causeway.com (Flash Gordon) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:55:18 UT

<snip>
<snip>
A "security" library proposal that include function that it recommends
you don't use? Seems plain stupid to me.
<snip>
Maybe they've improved a few, and on the next version they will improve
a few more (or remove the ones needing removal)?

Re: Killfile troll "Phil Carmody".

bm...@hotmail.com (Branimir Maksimovic) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:54:56 UT

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:13:51 +0100
Me too. I don't use anything with word "kill" in it ;)
Exactly! you don;t have to read.
Greets!

Re: Idiotic programming style edicts

ks...@mib.org (Keith Thompson) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:08:42 UT

Well, in C99 there certainly is:
Just write "#include <stdint.h>" at the top of your source file, and
you can use int32_t (if it's available). That's why the C99 standard
added it to the language.
Why does it matter how ugly the implementation of <stdint.h> is, as
long as it works? *You* don't have to write it, or even read it.

Cryptic Syntax

liamym...@yahoo.com (WD) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:09:12 UT

Can anybody explain what's going on in the extremely cryptic syntax
found in the return statement below? Based on observed program
functionality, it appears this statement directly launches a program
(that was created in memory during the /*create a program in memory
before returning*/ section) after main exits, but how?

Re: Idiotic programming style edicts

usenet-nos...@seebs.net (Seebs) — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:46:07 UT

Not really.
The goal is not to mandate the availability of every conceivable size, but
rather, to allow people to indicate which sizes the machine has.
Sure. And if C's intent were to require that a "4-byte" integer type MUST
exist, something more like that might well have been used.
I think the current division is about right for C -- we don't want to mandate

Re: Idiotic programming style edicts

ba...@freeuk.com (bartc) — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:40:00 UT

[other groups dropped]
(The files (inttypes.h and stdint.h anyway) appear to be LF-delimited. So in
Internet Explorer 7, they appear as one giant, monolithic block of text
(you'd think software that sophisticated would be able to cope with
LF-newlines...))
The contents of the files, well, starting with stdint.h: I'd only ever seen

Re: Idiotic programming style edicts

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:35:46 UT

Actually, I wrote part of DMPALL. Specifically the code that added
conditional criteria for record extraction. DMPALL was developed by several
engineers over a 20 year time frame. (Although I didn't keep a listing
of DMPALL, and don't recall the gocart stuff; not having seen the source
since 1986).

Re: Idiotic programming style edicts

m...@snafu.org (Marco S Hyman) — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:00:06 UT

Line by line comments can be interesting. I think it was the
Burroughs Medium Systems dumpall program that, if you read closely,
would find a treatise on go carts. I don't remember if it was
written by one author, or a back and forth between several :-)
/\/\arc

Re: Killfile troll "Phil Carmody".

ja...@nospam.org (jacob navia) — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:13:51 UT

Robbie Hatley a écrit :
Look, I have never "killfiled" anyone.
I just don't read what carmody writes, and that is much easier. Why bother?